Search This Blog

Electile Dysfunction – Special Election Double Issue 功能障碍 - 選舉雙刊

You would be forgiven for forgetting that the quadrennial Legislative Council (Legco) Election is this Sunday. For the entire city is talking about only one thing: the escalating national education controversy that has thrown our government into the biggest political firestorm since C.Y. Leung took office in July. It also doesn’t help matters that Election 2012 is a particularly confusing one. This time around, every voter is given two votes, one for a geographical constituency and the other for a District Council functional constituency called the “Super Seat.” Super what? And to confuse you even more, there are more new faces from political parties old and new in the run than in any prior elections. Figuring out who is who and which candidate to vote for can be a tall order. This article is designed to help.

Before you hike up your pants and wade through the murky waters of local politics, it helps to get a crash course on how the Legco works. This will help you get past the rhetoric and debunk the half-truths. So bear with me for a few minutes and tough out the next three paragraphs the same way you swallow cough medicine or listen to your boss’ golfing exploits. Once you understand it, everything else will start to make sense.

This Sunday is election day

Local Politics 101

The Legco, our mini-parliament, currently has 60 seats, half of which are called “geographical constituencies” (地方議席) and half of which are called “functional constituencies” (功能議席). The 2009 Political Reform Package increased the number of seats to 70 – adding 5 seats to each half – beginning this Election 2012. Whereas the 35 geographical seats are directly elected by millions of voters like you and me, the 35 functional seats are each handpicked by a small circle of voters within a trade or interest group. The Engineering functional seat, for instance, is selected by only a few thousand registered engineers, whereas the electoral base for the Insurance seat is made up of not a single individual but 140 insurance companies. By and large, the functional constituencies are dominated by pro-business, pro-government and pro-Beijing elites who invariably vote the party line.

The functional constituencies are the government’s most effective weapon against uncooperative lawmakers. They serve a dual purpose: to shoot down any bills introduced by the democratically-elected geographical constituencies and to rubber stamp those proposed by the government. This is how it works. Under the infamous “separate vote count” (分組點票) procedure, any bill introduced by a Legco member must go through two rounds of voting: it must first be passed by the geographical constituencies and then separately by the functional constituencies. As a result, bills that the government or Beijing doesn’t care for will inevitably get voted down by the ever loyal and ever predictable functional constituencies.

But the Legco voting system is seriously schizophrenic. Under our one-of-a-kind, only-in-Hong-Kong electoral system, the separate vote count mechanic applies only to bills proposed by individual lawmakers. Government-proposed bills, on the other hand, require merely a majority vote by all 60 (soon to be 70) seats voting together. Because Pan-Democrats carry only about 23 seats in the Legco, with the remaining seats taken up by pro-establishment lackeys (including most of the functional seats), the system ensures that every government-led initiative -- which otherwise would have been killed by democratically elected lawmakers in a separate vote count -- sails through the Legco without a hitch. As a result, our legislative and executive branches always march in lock steps. How is that for a separation of powers?

Separate vote count explained

Be Angry, Be Very Angry

If you have paid attention to what you just read, right now you should be fuming with anger. You should be asking yourself: how can a system so inherently undemocratic and blatantly unfair fly below our radar screen? Good question. In fact, the functional constituencies are the reason why taxpayers are forking out HK$67 billion for 26 kilometers of wasteful express railway, why the investigation of C.Y. Leung’s conflicts of interest in the West Kowloon bid was dropped, and why the government is sitting on trillions of foreign reserves and we still don’t have a social security plan. Funding for the national education curriculum, the cause célèbre that is blanketing the airwaves and plastering the newsstands this week, was approved by the Legco in 2004. 15 years after the Handover, the functional – make that dysfunctional – constituencies remain the single biggest stumbling block on the city’s path to full democracy.

Hong Kong has the dubious distinction of being one of very few places in the world where citizens are deprived of universal suffrage but still enjoy unfettered freedom of expression. It is as much an irony as it is a perfect recipe for social activism. While we don’t have the right to elect our chief executive or half of our lawmakers, we can shout out against unwanted government policies. Over time, our voices have become our proxy votes. It is Martin Luther King Jr. who said that “a riot is the language of the unheard.” In Hong Kong, slogans, banners and mass protests are our language. Sunday protests are so common that they have become a way of life.

Language of the unheard

Now back to this Sunday’s election.

Who Not to Vote for

Let's rule out the obvious: DAB (民建聯), the Liberal Party (自由黨), the Federation of Trade Union (工聯會) and Regina Ip’s New People's Party (新民黨) are all pro-Beijing, pro-establishment parties that you can cross off the list. Likewise, many of the so-called independent candidates are either secretly backed by one of those parties like Priscilla Leung (梁美芬), or numbskulls like Pamela Peck (白韻琹), a washed-up radio talk show host milking her D-list celebrity status. Together they make up a rogues gallery of social pariahs who prey on the elderly and the uninformed, who spit in your face and tell you it’s rain. If you are reading this, then chances are you are too smart to fall for their traps.

Then there are the Democrats (民主黨), the largest opposition party. Founded by Martin Lee in 1997, the Democrats used to a beacon of democracy and guardians of our core values. Though they might not always be as effective as we would like them to be, we thought of them as the good guys. But the summer of 2010 changed all that. During the heated political reform debate, the Democrats sold out the city by handing the government a political gift wrapped up in a bright pink bow: the seven votes it needed to pass the regressive Reform Package (which, unlike other bills, required a super-majority). We all suspected that they did it in exchange for favors from the Liaison Office (中聯辦), including a nomination threshold for the new “Super Seats” that is favorable to large political parties like the Democrats. Because of the underhanded trade, universal suffrage and the abolition of the functional constituencies – cornerstones of the Pan-Democrats' platform – got indefinitely postponed. The scars of betrayal run deep and the Democrats are now more despised than even the despicable DAB. So much for a beacon of democracy.

What about other Pan-Democrats like the Civic Party (公民黨), the Labour Party (工黨) and ADPL (民協)? They didn't sell us out to the Communists and those lawyers and union leaders surely look persuasive and gentlemanly. But their gentlemanliness is precisely their problem. Reasoned debate and thoughtful dialogue may work in normal democracies like the U.S. and Europe. But we don’t have a normal democracy in Hong Kong. So long as the functional constituencies still occupy the left wing of the Legco, none of the Pan-Democrats’ high school debate team tactics will gain any traction. Still, these one-trick ponies stick to what they do best: they wag their fingers at the government and issue strongly-worded public statements. It is the equivalent of hiring a guard dog that barks but never bites. Their lack of conviction, driven by their aversion to risk and desire to protect their professional image, has made them utterly powerless against the establishment. On that account, they are just as guilty as the pro-establishment camp of acquiescing to the status quo and contributing to the business-as-usual Legco culture.

A Faustian handshake

Don’t Mistake the Good Guys for the Bad

Enter People Power (人民力量) and the League of Social Democrats (社民連). Loud, crude and easily mistaken for common thugs, they are the polar opposites of the goody two-shoes Civic Party. Most people know them only for their over-the-top antics: hurling objects at political opponents and clashing with police outside the Liaison Office. God forbid, they even curse in front of television cameras from time to time. In a city that gives so much importance to civility and social harmony, these foul-mouthed rebels are branded as radical and irrational. They threaten our parliamentary culture and set bad examples for our children.

But that’s just a load of bollocks (expletive replaced).

With unwavering resolve and grit, People Power’s Raymond Wong (黃毓民) and the Social League’s Long Hair (長毛) use their no-nonsense straight talk and take-no-prisoner antics to rattle the establishment and shake up the status quo. They galvanize the public and breathe new life into social activism, our only leverage against a lopsided system. They are also positive role models for our youths, contrary to popular misconception. Without the likes of Wong and Long Hair to emulate, the students who organized themselves as Scholarism (學民思潮) wouldn’t have had the courage and conviction to besiege the government headquarters this week in protest of the national education curriculum. If the protestors were behaving anything like the gentle souls of the Civic Party, they would have paid the Education Department a visit, delivered a 50-page complaint letter and gone back to their studies.

What’s more, People Power and the Social League are not all brawn and no brains. Politically savvy and creative, they are the best antidote we have against the dysfunctional system. For instance, Raymond Wong came up with the brilliant idea of a de facto referendum to garner public support against the 2010 Reform Package. Though voters’ turn-out was disappointing, it was enough to upset Donald Tsang’s apple cart and force his cronies to scramble for a counter move. During the last Legco session, Wong and his faithful sidekick Albert Chan (陳偉業) played tag team in a series of filibusters that ultimately thwarted C.Y. Leung’s attempt to rush through his cabinet reshuffle without public consultation. While the two were busily stalling the Legco vote, the rest of the Pan-Democrats sat on the sidelines jeering at their efforts, green with envy.

Political leaders in the making

Whom to Vote for on Sunday

No matter how much I advocate for them, People Power and the Social League remain a hard pill for many Hong Kongers to swallow. Like durian and stinky tofu, they are an acquired taste. In Hong Kong, civility and docility are social values that have been firmly imprinted on us, not least by an education system based on rote learning and rule following. We tune out when we hear a curse word and squirm when things turn physical. We are trained to only listen to reason, even if we often lack the ability to tell the truth from lies. Between now and Sunday, politicians of all stripes will tell you the big plans they have for Hong Kong and the 25 reasons why you should vote for them. But in the end there is only one platform that any party can and should run on, and that is universal suffrage and the abolition of the functional constituencies. And the candidates that can get you the closest to the end game are People Power and the Social League. If you are still not convinced, think about the students camping out on Tamar Square, some of whom are on a hunger strike while others are calling for class boycotts. Now imagine it was our politicians on that square. Who among them do you think would most likely get the government to back down? Those who play by the rules or those who think outside the box? Choose wisely.

What About that Second Vote?

“Super Seats” refer to the five new functional seats added to the Legco as a result of the 2010 Reform Package. The candidates are nominated by District Councilors and elected by all registered voters. They are so called because of their large electoral base comprising over 3.2 million voters. But the high nomination threshold negotiated between the Liaison Office and the Democratic Party has effectively barred People Power, the Social League and other small parties from the race. I therefore suggest you cast a blank vote, for it will send a clear enough message to the Super Seat candidates that none of them is worthy of your vote.

They deserve your vote

______________________________

This article was published on SCMP.com under Jason Y. Ng's column "As I See It."

As posted on SCMP.com

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Popular Posts

“We are here to visit a friend,” I said to the guard at the entrance.
Tiffany, Joshua Wong Chi-fung’s long-time girlfriend, trailed behind me. It was our first time visiting Joshua at Pik Uk Correctional Institution and neither of us quite knew what to expect.

“Has your friend been convicted?” asked the guard. We nodded in unison. There are different visiting hours and rules for suspects and convicts. Each month, convicts may receive up to two half-hour visits from friends and family, plus two additional visits from immediate family upon request.
The guard pointed to the left and told us to register at the reception office. “I saw your taxi pass by earlier,” he said while eyeing a pair of camera-wielding paparazzi on the prowl. “Next time you can tell the driver to pull up here to spare you the walk.”
At the reception counter, Officer Wong took our identity cards and checked them against the “List.” Each inmate is allowed to grant visitation rights to no more than 10 friends and fam…

You have reached a midlife plateau. You have everything you thought you wanted: a happy family, a well-located apartment and a cushy management job. The only thing missing from that bourgeois utopia is a bit of oomph, a bit of recognition that you have played by the rules and done all right. A Porsche 911? Too clichéd. A rose gold Rolex? Got that last Christmas. An extramarital affair that ends in a costly divorce or a boiled bunny? No thanks. How about a membership at one of the city’s country clubs where accomplished individuals like yourself hang out in plaid pants and flat caps? Sounds great, but you’d better get in line.

Clubs are an age-old concept that traces back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The introduction of coffee beans to England in the mid-17th Century spurred the proliferation of coffeehouses for like-minded gentlemen to trade gossip about the monarchy over a hot beverage. In the centuries since, these semi-secret hideouts evolved into main street establishments t…

There are things about America that boggle the mind: gun violence, healthcare costs and Donald Trump. But once in a while – not often, just once in a while – the country gets something so right and displays such courage that it reminds the rest of the world what an amazing place it truly is. What happened three days ago at the nation’s capital is shaping up to be one of those instances.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a 5-to-4 decision on same-sex marriage, the most important gay rights ruling in the country’s history. In Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Kennedy wrote, “It would misunderstand [gay and lesbian couples] to say that they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find fulfillment for themselves… They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
With those simple words, Justice Kennedy made marriage equality a constitutionally prote…

This month marks the third birthday of my blog As I See It, a social commentary on the trials and tribulations of living in Hong Kong. The occasion coincides with the 100th article I have written under the banner. Having reached a personal milestone, I decided to take the opportunity to reflect on my still-young writing career and wallow in, dare we say, self-congratulatory indulgence.

It all started in November 2008 on the heels of the last U.S. presidential election. I was getting ready to create a personal website as a platform to consolidate my interests and pursuits. To do that I needed content. That’s how my blog – or my “online op-ed column” as I prefer to call it – came into being.
Before I knew it, I was banging it out in front of my iMac every night, going on and off the tangent and in and out of my stream of consciousness about the odd things I experienced in the city, the endless parade of pink elephants I saw everyday that no one seemed to bat an eyelid at. Though singi…

The school year had barely begun when two incidents—both testing the limits of free speech on campus—unfolded at Chinese University and Education University and sent management scrambling for a response.
On Monday, at least three large banners bearing the words “Hong Kong independence” were spotted in various locations at Chinese University, including one that draped across the famous “Beacon” sculpture outside the school’s main library. Within hours, the banners were removed by the school authorities.
A few days later, a sign “congratulating” Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk-lin (蔡若蓮) on her son’s recent suicide appeared on Education University’s Democracy Wall, a public bulletin board for students to express opinions and exchange views. Likewise, the sign was taken down shortly thereafter.

That could have been the end of the controversies had university management not succumbed to the temptation to say a few choice words of their own. In the end, it was the reaction from the schoo…

When I shook his hand for the first time, I thought he was the strangest seventeen-year-old I’d ever met.
It was 2014, and considering how much Hong Kong has changed in the last three year, it felt like a lifetime ago.
Joshua sat across from me at a table in the Foreign Correspondents’ Club, with his iPhone in one hand and an iPad in the other. I ordered him a lemon iced tea with extra syrup.
He was eager to begin our conversation, not because he was excited about being interviewed for my article, but because he wanted to get it over with and get on with the rest of his jam-packed day.
During our 45-minute chat, he spoke in rapid-fire Cantonese, blinking every few seconds in the way robots are programmed to blink like humans. He was quick, precise and focused.

He was also curt.
When I asked him if he had a Twitter account, he snapped, “Nobody uses Twitter in Hong Kong. Next question.”
I wasn’t the least offended by his bluntness—I chalked it up to gumption and precocity. For a te…

Few symbols of colonialism are more universally recognized than the live-in maid. From the British trading post in Bombay to the cotton plantation in Mississippi, images abound of the olive-skinned domestic worker buzzing around the house, cooking, cleaning, ironing and bringing ice cold lemonade to her masters who keep grumbling about the summer heat. It is ironic that, for a city that cowered under colonial rule for a century and a half, Hong Kong should have the highest number of maids per capita in Asia. In our city of contradictions, neither a modest income nor a shoebox apartment is an obstacle for local families to hire a domestic helper and to free themselves from chores and errands.

On any given Sunday or public holiday, migrant domestic workers carpet every inch of open space in Central and Causeway Bay. They turn parks and footbridges into camping sites with cardboard boxes as their walls and opened umbrellas as their roofs. They play cards, cut hair, sell handicraft and p…

About Me

Born in Hong Kong, Jason is a globe-trotter who spent his entire adult life in Europe and various cities in the United States and Canada before settling back in his birthplace to rediscover his roots.
Jason is a news columnist, a bestselling author, a practicing lawyer and an adjunct law professor. He is the President of PEN Hong Kong and a member of the Progressive Lawyers Group.
Jason lives in Hong Kong and can be contacted at info@jasonyng.com. For more, visit www.jasonyng.com.

About this site

As I See It is a biweekly column that began in 2008 as a social commentary on Hong Kong's many contradictions and oddities. It also tackles the city's pressing social, political and existential issues. Jason's articles are reproduced in the online edition of the South China Morning Post and are frequently cited by overseas news media.

Umbrellas in Bloom

Umbrellas in Bloom, the first book published in English to chronicle the occupy movement of 2014 and the last instalment of Jason Y. Ng's Hong Kong trilogy, debuts No.1 on Amazon.com in the Hong Kong History category. It is all you need to know about the biggest political upheaval in post-handover Hong Kong: who took part in it, why it happened, how it transpired, and what it did and did not achieve.

No City for Slow Men

Published in 2013, No City for Slow Men examines some of the pressing social, cultural and existential issues facing Hong Kong. It is a treatise on local life that is thought-provoking, touching and immensely entertaining.

HK State of Mind

Published in 2010, HONG KONG State of Mind is a collection of essays that zeroes in on the city’s idiosyncrasies with deadpan precision. It promises something for everyone: a travel journal for the passing visitor, a user’s manual for the wide-eyed expat, and an open diary for the native Hong Konger looking for moments of reflection.